Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of environmental organizations argues that Arendalsuka, a major Norwegian democratic festival, should drop Equinor as a sponsor. The authors claim Equinor is one of 36 'fossil giants' responsible for over half of global CO2 emissions and accuse the company of using 'petroganda' to manipulate public perception. They highlight that in 2023, only 0.15% of Equinor's total production was renewable energy, contrasting this with the company's image as a pioneer in low-carbon solutions. The statement further notes that Equinor spent 833 million NOK on sponsorships over the last five years to preserve its image.

The Petrogandaprisen 2025 identifies numerous instances of the oil industry's influence in Norway, categorizing nominees into eight areas: education for children and youth, sports, public festivals, campaigns, media and public debate, research, art and culture, and health and humanitarian work. The document argues that companies like Equinor, Vår Energi, and Aker BP use sponsorships and partnerships to create a positive image, target young audiences, and obstruct climate action. Specific examples include Equinor's sponsorship of the First Lego League and the Festspillene i Bergen, Vår Energi's funding of regional sports halls, and Aker BP's 'Rebels' marketing campaigns. The report also criticizes the role of media outlets like NRK and Dagens Næringsliv, as well as research institutions and humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross, for facilitating or ignoring the industry's impact on the climate crisis.

Mighty Earth criticizes the US SEC for approving the IPO of JBS, the world's largest meat company, alleging the decision was influenced by a $5 million donation from JBS subsidiary Pilgrim's Pride to President Trump's inaugural committee. The author contends that JBS has a history of corruption, bribery, and misleading climate data, and that the listing will enable the company to scale its deforestation and climate pollution, which is estimated to be equivalent to that of Spain.

The document discusses the decline of Tesla's market share in the U.S. and Europe and the environmental impact of EV supply chains, specifically critiquing Hyundai's manufacturing plans while advocating for a transition to green steel and human rights protections.

The document criticizes Blackrock and Vanguard for temporarily halting engagement activities with companies after the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) introduced new reporting requirements for investors holding more than 5% of a US company. Reclaim Finance asserts that these transparency rules are not a legal barrier to engagement and that the asset managers' reactions reflect a broader retreat from ESG commitments. The text highlights the firms' continued investment in fossil fuels and their withdrawal from international climate alliances, urging clients to demand stronger climate engagement or switch managers to protect their portfolios from systemic climate risks.

The report critiques the industrial agribusiness model, describing it as a network of transnational corporations and financial institutions that prioritise profit maximisation through large-scale monocultures and high-input systems. It argues that these entities promote 'false solutions'—including voluntary certifications, sustainable intensification, and regenerative agriculture—to greenwash their image, capture policy-making processes, and commodify nature through carbon markets. The document highlights the negative impacts of this model, such as deforestation in Indonesia and Brazil, human rights violations, and the displacement of small-scale farmers in Argentina, while contrasting these with 'real peoples' solutions' based on food sovereignty and agroecology.

The report critiques the industrial agri-food system, describing it as a network of producers, processors, and retailers that prioritizes profit maximization through intensive monocultures and chemical inputs. It argues that corporate-led initiatives—such as sustainability certifications, 'sustainable intensification,' and 'regenerative agriculture'—are 'false solutions' designed to greenwash industrial practices, capture carbon markets, and shift responsibility to consumers. The document highlights the negative impacts of this model, including deforestation, human rights violations, and the marginalization of small-scale farmers, while contrasting these with 'people's solutions' based on food sovereignty and agroecology.

The report critiques the industrial agribusiness model, describing it as a network of transnational companies and financial institutions that prioritize profit and scale over environmental and social health. It argues that the industry employs 'false solutions'—market-based mechanisms and corporate-led certifications—to avoid genuine regulation and maintain control over the global food system. The document highlights specific examples, including the failure of RSPO certifications in Indonesia and the impact of no-till farming in Argentina, to demonstrate how these tactics often exacerbate deforestation and undermine small-scale producers.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Engie for paying record dividends of 4.1 billion euros in 2023 while continuing to expand its fossil gas infrastructure, including LNG imports and new power plants in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Chile.

Reclaim Finance argues that Barclays' updated climate policies are insufficient and misleading, claiming the bank continues to support oil and gas expansion through corporate finance and vague frameworks. The analysis asserts that the bank's Transition Finance Framework includes problematic technologies like 'blue' hydrogen and CCUS, while failing to set specific, science-based financing targets for sustainable power.

The statement warns that fossil fuel companies are leveraging taxpayer-funded DACCS technology to offset emissions and maintain their social license to operate. It highlights Occidental Petroleum's Stratos project as a primary example of how carbon capture can be linked to enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which may actually increase net CO2 emissions. The author urges EU policymakers to ensure the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) bans the use of removals for offsetting to prevent similar corporate greenwashing in Europe.

The document criticizes ENGIE's coal phase-out strategy, claiming the company avoids genuine decarbonization by selling coal plants to third parties or converting them to fossil gas and solid biomass. It highlights specific asset sales in Europe, Brazil, and Morocco, and conversions in Chile, arguing these actions are not aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory and risk ecological damage.

The document argues that 'net zero' strategies serve as a 'smoke screen' for large corporations to continue fossil fuel extraction and industrial agriculture. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, data appropriation, and the co-optation of agroecology, ultimately benefiting agribusiness and tech firms while undermining the rights of small-scale producers and Indigenous peoples.

The document argues that 'net zero' promises act as a 'smoke screen' for multinational corporations to maintain fossil fuel and industrial agriculture growth. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, data extraction from small farmers, and the marginalization of agroecology. The report contends that these market-based approaches prioritize carbon metrics over food sovereignty and ecological justice, calling instead for a transition to agroecological systems and the abandonment of industrial food models.

The statement argues that SCOR is adopting a double standard by reducing its exposure to natural catastrophe contracts to protect profitability while continuing to cover fossil fuel companies, despite global climate disruption and recommendations to limit damage.

Reclaim Finance criticizes TotalEnergies' climate plan as incompatible with the 1.5°C warming limit, noting that the company remains a leading developer of hydrocarbons. The statement highlights a growing opposition from investors, including Crédit Mutuel, and urges shareholders to reject the plan and oppose the reelection of directors to hold the company accountable for its continued fossil fuel expansion.

Reclaim Finance critiques Total SE's climate claims, asserting that the company's scope 3 emission targets are vague and insufficient. The organization argues that Total's projected emissions for 2030 will significantly exceed 1.5°C alignment levels and that its carbon intensity reductions are far below the 90% decrease recommended by Carbone 4 to limit warming to 2°C.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Enbridge for securing a $1 billion sustainability-linked credit facility while continuing to invest heavily in fossil fuels and the Line 3 pipeline. The organization contends that Enbridge's ESG goals are insufficient as they only cover scope 1 and 2 emissions, ignoring the vast majority of the carbon footprint associated with oil sands transport. The document highlights that the Line 3 project in Minnesota violates indigenous rights and significantly increases greenhouse gas emissions, calling for stricter financial regulations to prevent such greenwashing.

The Changing Markets Foundation accuses Coca-Cola of having a 'worrying track-record of broken promises' regarding plastic and of undermining deposit return legislation in Kenya, China, and Georgia (USA). The letter demands that Coca-Cola publicly support deposit return systems globally, increase transparency regarding its 2.9 million tonnes of annual plastic use, and adopt ambitious reuse targets.

The Changing Markets Foundation writes to Nestlé's CEO, Ulf Mark Schneider, regarding the company's role as a major plastic polluter and its failure to meet recycling and recycled content targets. The letter argues that Nestlé's voluntary commitments often lack specificity and accountability, and urges the company to support mandatory legislative solutions, such as global Deposit Return Systems (DRS), and to be transparent about its full plastic footprint.